DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Status of Claims
This Office action is in reply to filing by applicant on 04/01/2026.
Claims 1, 7, 11, 15 – 17, and 19 were amended by Applicant.
Claims 4 – 6, 8 – 10, and 21 – 25 were previously presented by Applicant.
Claim 18 remains as original.
Claim 26 is new.
Claims 2, 3, 12 - 14, and 20 were cancelled by Applicant.
Claims 1, 4 – 11, 15 – 19, and 21 – 26 are currently pending and have been examined.
The prior 35 USC 103 claim rejections set forth in the Non-Final rejection of 12/03/2025 as to claims 1, 4 – 11, 14 – 19, and 21 – 25 are maintained, save the cancellation of claim 14, in view of Applicant's arguments and amendments. A 35 USC 103 rejection was also added to new claim 26 herein.
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL.
Response to Arguments
There are no new grounds of rejection herein as to any of the claims.
Applicant argues per 35 USC 103 that Petrany does not teach or suggest (per claims 1, 11, 19) "identifying the location data of objects within zones other than the selected subset of zones.", Remarks 10. Examiner respectfully disagrees. Furthermore, examiner is entitled to some latitude in interpreting the claims broadly, which, here, he has done. Exact word for word mapping is not required. Examiner additionally notes that Peterny ID’s all surrounding zones. See Petrany Abstract, (“A system and method for monitoring objects in the vicinity of a work machine that is in motion includes obtaining, using a camera associated with the work machine, first image data of a field-of-view of the camera at a first position; identifying an object-of-interest within the first image data; associating an alarm with the object-of-interest, the alarm configured to indicate the presence of the object-of-interest; presenting the alarm through an output device; receiving an input to snooze the alarm for the object-of-interest; generating a mask for the object-of-interest using image coordinates of the object-of-interest within the first image data; obtaining, using the camera, second image data of the field-of-view of the camera at a second position during motion of the work machine; identifying an object within the second image data; and selectively aborting the alarm presentation through the output device in response to determining, using the mask, that the object is the object-of-interest.“.
Generally as to obviousness, examiner submits that it is determined on the basis of the evidence as a whole and the relative persuasiveness of the arguments. See In re Oetiker, 977 F.2d 1443, 1445, 24 USPQ2d 1443, 1444 (Fed. Cir. 1992); In re Hedges, 783 F.2d 1038, 1039, 228 USPQ 685,686 (Fed. Cir. 1992); In re Piasecki, 745 F.2d 1468, 1472, 223 USPQ 785,788 (Fed. Cir. 1984); and In re Rinehart, 531 F.2d 1048, 1052, 189 USPQ 143,147 (CCPA 1976). Using this standard, examiner submits that the burden of presenting a prima facie case of obviousness was successfully established in the prior Office Action of 12/03/2025, and also respecting the pending amended claim set of 04/01/2026, as seen below.
Examiner recognizes that references cannot be arbitrarily altered or modified, and that there must be some reason why a person having ordinary skill in the relevant art would be motivated to make the proposed modifications. Although the motivation or suggestion to make modifications must be articulated, it is respectfully submitted that there is no requirement that the motivation to make modifications must be expressly articulated within the references themselves. References are evaluated by what they suggest to one versed in the art, rather than by their specific disclosures, In re Bozek, 163 USPQ 545 (CCPA 1969).
Examiner also notes that the motivation to combine the applied references is, where appropriate in the below detailed analysis pursuant to 35 USC 103, additionally accompanied by select passages from the respective references which specifically support that particular motivation. It is also respectfully submitted that motivation based on the logic and scientific reasoning of one ordinarily skilled in the art at the time of the invention, which evidence can also support a finding of obviousness, is otherwise provided in the detailed 35 USC 103 analysis of the claim set below. In re Nilssen, 851 F.2d 1401, 1403, 7 USPQ2d 1500, 1502 (Fed. Cir. 1988) (references do not have to explicitly suggest combining teachings); Ex parte Clapp, 227 USPQ 972 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1985) (examiner must present convincing line of reasoning supporting rejection); and Ex parte Levengood, 28 USPQ2d 1300 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1993) (reliance on logic and sound scientific reasoning).
Examiner recognizes that obviousness can only be established by combining or modifying the teachings of the prior art to produce the claimed invention where there is some teaching, suggestion, or motivation to do so found either in the references themselves or in the knowledge generally available to a person of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Fine, 837 F.2d 1071, 5 USPQ2d 1596 (Fed. Cir. 1988) and In re Jones, 958 F.2d 347.
Claim Rejections – 35 USC 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 USC 102 and 103 is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 USC 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office Action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 USC 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating
obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 1, 4 – 11, 15 – 19, and 21 – 26 are rejected pursuant to 35 USC 103 as being unpatentable over Bilandi (US20120327261A1) in view of Petrany (US20220076033A1).
Regarding claims 1, 11 and 19:
Bilandi discloses:
a base operable to move the rotational machine; (“Referring to FIG. 1, an electric mining shovel is shown generally at 100. The shovel 100 includes a machinery housing 102 that is pivotably mounted on a crawler platform 104 at a pivot 105. The crawler platform includes crawler tracks 106 for moving the shovel 100 to a loading location.”, [076]), and see Fig. 1;
a body rotationally mounted on the base; (“Referring to FIG. 1, an electric mining shovel is shown generally at 100. The shovel 100 includes a machinery housing 102 that is pivotably mounted on a crawler platform 104 at a pivot 105. The crawler platform includes crawler tracks 106 for moving the shovel 100 to a loading location.”, [076]), and see Fig. 1;
one or more sensors coupled to the body, wherein the one or more sensors detect movement data, the movement data and location data of objects near the rotational machine; (“The processor circuit is also operably configured to receive proximity signals from a plurality of sensors disposed about a periphery of the loading equipment, each sensor being operable to generate a proximity signal in response to detecting an object within a coverage region of the sensor, the proximity signal including an indication of at least an approximate distance between the sensor and the object”, [008]) and (“The processor circuit may be further operably configured to determine a pattern of movement between an object within the warning zone with respect to the loading equipment, and to determine whether the pattern of movement corresponds to a pattern of movement associated with normal operations of the loading equipment, and initiate the alert by issuing an alert only when the pattern of movement does not correspond to a pattern of movement associated with normal operations of the loading equipment.”, [019]) and (“In one embodiment, the database store 462 also stores an associated data file for each image 600, which may be an Microsoft Excel data file including values associated with the image that define attributes such as a scale factor for the, a location of the pivot 105 or center of rotation of the shovel, and identifications of surfaces of the housing 102 on which the sensors are expected to be installed.”, [091]); locational, movement and rotational data are detected;
a controller communicably coupled to the one or more sensors, the controller operable to perform a hazard warning method, the method comprising:(“The system 200 further includes a relay driver 214 for activating the warning lights and audible warning generators 142-150. The relay driver 214 includes a USB interface 216 for receiving control signals and a relay bank 218 having a relay for activating each respective warning light or audible warning generator 142-150. The relay driver 214 is operable to selectively activate one or more of the warning lights and/or audible warning generators 142-150 in response to commands from the processor circuit 202 received via the USB hub 206.”, [083]) and (“Defining the alert region may involve, for each sensor, associating ones of the plurality of detection zones with the alert region.”, [036]);
Bilandi does not expressly disclose, but Petrany teaches:
applying a detection zone filter to select a subset of zones, the selected subset of zones belonging to and being less than an entirety of a set of predefined zones, Examiner interprets in light of the Specification the claim term “zone filter” to include that a rotating work machine (turret’s several different viewed zones, or “field][s]-of-view”, per Petrany) may be filtered into zone subsets, … (“In one example, a method for monitoring objects in the vicinity of a work machine that is in motion includes obtaining, using a camera associated with the work machine, first image data of a field-of-view of the camera at a first position; identifying an object-of-interest within the first image data; associating an alarm with the object-of-interest, the alarm configured to indicate the presence of the object-of-interest; presenting the alarm through an output device; receiving an input to snooze the alarm for the object-of-interest; generating a mask for the object-of-interest using image coordinates of the object-of-interest within the first image data; obtaining, using the camera, second image data of the field-of-view of the camera at a second position during motion of the work machine; identifying an object within the second image data; and selectively aborting the alarm presentation through the output device in response to determining, using the mask, that the object is the object-of-interest.”, [003]), the zones can be filtered into subsets as above;
identifying the location data of objects within the selected subset of zones (“A system and method for monitoring objects in the vicinity of a work machine that is in motion includes obtaining, using a camera associated with the work machine, first image data of a field-of-view of the camera at a first position; identifying an object-of-interest within the first image data; associating an alarm with the object-of-interest, the alarm configured to indicate the presence of the object-of-interest; presenting the alarm through an output device; receiving an input to snooze the alarm for the object-of-interest; generating a mask for the object-of-interest using image coordinates of the object-of-interest within the first image data; obtaining, using the camera, second image data of the field-of-view of the camera at a second position during motion of the work machine; identifying an object within the second image data;”, [ABSTRACT], published March 10, 2022]) and see Petrany [003] (detailed immediately above); … objects detected by machine in various zones/fields-of-view can be snoozed/ excluded/ masked);
identifying the location data of objects within zones other than the selected subset of zones; (“In one example, a method for monitoring objects in the vicinity of a work machine that is in motion includes obtaining, using a camera associated with the work machine, first image data of a field-of-view of the camera at a first position; identifying an object-of-interest within the first image data; associating an alarm with the object-of-interest, the alarm configured to indicate the presence of the object-of-interest; presenting the alarm through an output device; receiving an input to snooze the alarm for the object-of-interest; generating a mask for the object-of-interest using image coordinates of the object-of-interest within the first image data; obtaining, using the camera, second image data of the field-of-view of the camera at a second position during motion of the work machine; identifying an object within the second image data; and selectively aborting the alarm presentation through the output device in response to determining, using the mask, that the object is the object-of-interest”, [003]);
excluding the location data of the objects for the zones other than the selected subset of zones; and (“A system and method for monitoring objects in the vicinity of a work machine that is in motion includes obtaining, using a camera associated with the work machine, first image data of a field-of-view of the camera at a first position; identifying an object-of-interest within the first image data; associating an alarm with the object-of-interest, the alarm configured to indicate the presence of the object-of-interest; presenting the alarm through an output device; receiving an input to snooze the alarm for the object-of-interest; generating a mask for the object-of-interest using image coordinates of the object-of-interest within the first image data; obtaining, using the camera, second image data of the field-of-view of the camera at a second position during motion of the work machine; identifying an object within the second image data;”, [ABSTRACT], published March 10, 2022]) and see Petrany [003] (detailed immediately above); … objects detected by machine in various zones/fields-of-view can be snoozed/ excluded/ masked);
the movement data including rotational data of the rotational machine (“The machine 400 is configured to rotate about an axis. In the examples illustrated in FIGS. 4A and 4B, the work machine rotates counterclockwise, but in other examples, the work machine 400 may rotate clockwise. As the work machine 400 rotates, the camera 402 and associated field-of-view 404 also rotate such that an object 406 enters the field-of-view 404. As the work machine 400 continues to rotate, the object 406 moves out of the field-of-view 404, and once the work machine 400 has fully rotated, the object 406 will once again move into the field-of-view 404. To prevent outputting an alarm each time the object re-enters the field-of-view 404, the method 100 may be used to generate a mask for the object 406 such that the alarm for the object 406 can be snoozed. If the object 406 moves, the alarm may once again be output to the operator of the work machine and the mask may be updated if so desired.”, [031]);
the selected subset of zones being selected via the detection zone filter based on the rotational data of the rotational machine including a direction of rotation of the rotational machine; Examiner interprets in light of the Specification the claim term “zone” to include a rotating work machine turret’s several different “fields of view”, that said, the limitation here requires that these subset “zones” (fields of view”) are a function of rotational data / direction, … (“The machine 400 is configured to rotate about an axis. In the examples illustrated in FIGS. 4A and 4B, the work machine rotates counterclockwise, but in other examples, the work machine 400 may rotate clockwise. As the work machine 400 rotates, the camera 402 and associated field-of-view 404 also rotate such that an object 406 enters the field-of-view 404. As the work machine 400 continues to rotate, the object 406 moves out of the field-of-view 404, and once the work machine 400 has fully rotated, the object 406 will once again move into the field-of-view 404. To prevent outputting an alarm each time the object re-enters the field-of-view 404, the method 100 may be used to generate a mask for the object 406 such that the alarm for the object 406 can be snoozed. If the object 406 moves, the alarm may once again be output to the operator of the work machine and the mask may be updated if so desired.”, [031]);
providing an alert if the location data of the objects passes the detection zone filter. (“If the object is associated with a mask, the method 100 proceeds to step 120 and no alarm is output to the operator of the work machine. If the object is not associated with a mask, the method 100 proceeds to step 122 and an alarm is output to the operator of the work machine to alert the operator to the detected object. This way, the operator is not alerted to objects which have already been assessed and snoozed by the operator of the work machine. This provides the advantage that an operator is less likely to disable alerts or otherwise ignore alerts from an object detection system for a rotating machine because the operator does not receive as many alerts for a same object.”, [023]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of this application to have modified Bilandi to incorporate the teachings of Petrany because Bilandi would be more efficient and versatile if it could eliminate a subset of rotative zones (usually non-critical) from the totality of rotative zones as viewed from the work machine via rotation, so as to better focus driver’s (or not) attention towards critical (or not) zones of interest, as done in Petrany. (“… present the alarm through the output device; receive an input to snooze the alarm for the object-of-interest; generate a mask for the object-of-interest using image coordinates of the object-of-interest within the first image data; obtain, using the camera, second image data of the field-of-view of the camera at a second position during motion of the work machine; identify an object within the second image data; and selectively abort the alarm presentation through the output device in response to determining, using the mask, that the object is the object-of-interest.”, [004] of Petrany.
Regarding claim 4:
The combination of Bilandi and Petrany disclose the limitations of claim 1:
Bilandi further teaches:
wherein the method further comprises categorizing whether the relevant object location data is within a critical zone. Examiner interprets “critical zone” to include in its meaning a “collision region”, … (“The processor circuit may be operably configured to define the alert region by defining at least one of a collision region, where objects located within the collision region would be disposed in a collision path of the operating equipment, and defining a warning region extending outwardly from the collision region, where objects located within the warning region may be outside of the collision region but sufficiently close to the collision region to be in danger of encroaching on the collision region.”, [016]).
Regarding claims 5 and 17 (claim 17 here mapped reads on claim 5):
The combination of Bilandi and Petrany disclose the limitations of claims 4 and 14, respectively:
Bilandi further teaches:
wherein the alert comprises at least one of: providing an alert comprises providing an audio alert and a visual alert if the location data is within the critical zone. (“The processor circuit may be operably configured to initiate the alert by at least one of causing an audible tone to be produced for warning an operator of the loading equipment, causing an audible tone to be produced for warning an operator of the object, causing a visual alert to be displayed on a display associated with operations of the loading equipment, causing a warning light within view of the operator of the object to be activated, generating a wireless alert signal for receipt by other equipment located in the vicinity of the operating ambit of the loading equipment, and generating a wireless alert signal for receipt by a dispatch center, the dispatch center being in communication with at least one of an operator of the loading equipment and an operator of the object.”, [024]), and see [016], directly above;.
Regarding claim 6:
The combination of Bilandi and Petrany disclose the limitations of claim 1:
Bilandi further teaches:
wherein the method further comprises categorizing whether relevant object location data is within a caution zone surrounding a critical zone. Examiner interprets “caution zone” to include in its meaning a “warning region”, (“The processor circuit may be operably configured to define the alert region by defining at least one of a collision region, where objects located within the collision region would be disposed in a collision path of the operating equipment, and defining a warning region extending outwardly from the collision region, where objects located within the warning region may be outside of the collision region but sufficiently close to the collision region to be in danger of encroaching on the collision region.”, [016]).
Regarding claims 7 and 16:
The combination of Bilandi and Petrany disclose the limitations of claims 6 and 14, respectively:
Bilandi further teaches:
wherein providing an alert includes only displaying object detection zone data if the relevant object location data is within the caution zone. Note as above that the “caution zone” includes in its meaning a warning region, … (“The processor circuit may be operably configured to initiate the alert by at least one of causing an audible tone to be produced for warning an operator of the loading equipment, causing an audible tone to be produced for warning an operator of the object, causing a visual alert to be displayed on a display associated with operations of the loading equipment, causing a warning light within view of the operator of the object to be activated, generating a wireless alert signal for receipt by other equipment located in the vicinity of the operating ambit of the loading equipment, and generating a wireless alert signal for receipt by a dispatch center, the dispatch center being in communication with at least one of an operator of the loading equipment and an operator of the object.”, [024]) and (“Defining the alert region may involve defining at least one of a collision region, where objects located within the collision region would be disposed in a collision path of the operating equipment, and defining a warning region extending outwardly from the collision region, where objects located within the warning region are outside of the collision region but sufficiently close to the collision region to be in danger of encroaching on the collision region.”, [44]).
Regarding claim 8:
The combination of Bilandi and Petrany disclose the limitations of claim 1:
Petrany further teaches:
wherein selecting location data of objects for subset of zones based on the See Petrany Fig’s 4A, 4B, 5A, and 5B, which all depict plan views of a rotational work machine capable of viewing things “backward” of itself.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of this application to have modified Bilandi to incorporate the teachings of Petrany because Bilandi would be more efficient and versatile if it could eliminate a subset of rotative zones (usually non-critical) from the totality of rotative zones as viewed from the work machine via rotation, so as to better focus driver’s (or not) attention towards critical (or not) zones of interest, as done in Petrany. (“… present the alarm through the output device; receive an input to snooze the alarm for the object-of-interest; generate a mask for the object-of-interest using image coordinates of the object-of-interest within the first image data; obtain, using the camera, second image data of the field-of-view of the camera at a second position during motion of the work machine; identify an object within the second image data; and selectively abort the alarm presentation through the output device in response to determining, using the mask, that the object is the object-of-interest.”, [004] of Petrany.
Regarding claim 9
The combination of Bilandi and Petrany disclose the limitations of claim 1:
Petrany further teaches:
wherein selecting subset of zones based on the rotational data comprises selecting the subset of zones based on at least one of: left rotational movement data, right rotational movement data, or rotational speed data. (“The machine 400 is configured to rotate about an axis. In the examples illustrated in FIGS. 4A and 4B, the work machine rotates counterclockwise, but in other examples, the work machine 400 may rotate clockwise. As the work machine 400 rotates, the camera 402 and associated field-of-view 404 also rotate such that an object 406 enters the field-of-view 404. As the work machine 400 continues to rotate, the object 406 moves out of the field-of-view 404, and once the work machine 400 has fully rotated, the object 406 will once again move into the field-of-view 404. To prevent outputting an alarm each time the object re-enters the field-of-view 404, the method 100 may be used to generate a mask for the object 406 such that the alarm for the object 406 can be snoozed. If the object 406 moves, the alarm may once again be output to the operator of the work machine and the mask may be updated if so desired.”, [031]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of this application to have modified Bilandi to incorporate the teachings of Petrany because Bilandi would be more efficient and versatile if it could eliminate a subset of rotative zones (non-critical) from the totality of rotative zones as viewed from the work machine via rotation, so as to better focus driver’s (or not) attention towards critical (or not) zones of interest, as done in Petrany. (“… present the alarm through the output device; receive an input to snooze the alarm for the object-of-interest; generate a mask for the object-of-interest using image coordinates of the object-of-interest within the first image data; obtain, using the camera, second image data of the field-of-view of the camera at a second position during motion of the work machine; identify an object within the second image data; and selectively abort the alarm presentation through the output device in response to determining, using the mask, that the object is the object-of-interest.”, [004] of Petrany.
Regarding claim 10
The combination of Bilandi and Petrany disclose the limitations of claim 1:
Bilandi further teaches:
wherein the alert comprises displaying object detection zone data. (“The processor circuit may be operably configured to initiate the alert by at least one of causing an audible tone to be produced for warning an operator of the loading equipment, causing an audible tone to be produced for warning an operator of the object, causing a visual alert to be displayed on a display associated with operations of the loading equipment, causing a warning light within view of the operator of the object to be activated, generating a wireless alert signal for receipt by other equipment located in the vicinity of the operating ambit of the loading equipment, and generating a wireless alert signal for receipt by a dispatch center, the dispatch center being in communication with at least one of an operator of the loading equipment and an operator of the object.”, [024]) and (“Defining the alert region may involve defining at least one of a collision region, where objects located within the collision region would be disposed in a collision path of the operating equipment, and defining a warning region extending outwardly from the collision region, where objects located within the warning region are outside of the collision region but sufficiently close to the collision region to be in danger of encroaching on the collision region.”, [044]).
Regarding claim 15
The combination of Bilandi and Petrany disclose the limitations of claim 11:
Bilandi further teaches:
wherein providing the alert comprises one of preventing, slowing, or stopping movement of the rotational machine if the location data is within one or more critical zone. (“In another embodiment image recognition may be performed on the images of the object or other steps such as radio frequency identification may be employed to provide an identification of the object that is detected. The object may be configured with an emergency stop system that receives a wireless command signal from the shovel 100 to cause the object to be halted when a possibility of a collision is detected.”, [0118]).
Regarding claim 18:
The combination of Bilandi and Petrany disclose the limitations of claim 11:
Bilandi further teaches:
altering the movement of the machine if the object location data passes the detection zone filter. (“In another embodiment image recognition may be performed on the images of the object or other steps such as radio frequency identification may be employed to provide an identification of the object that is detected. The object may be configured with an emergency stop system that receives a wireless command signal from the shovel 100 to cause the object to be halted when a possibility of a collision is detected.”, [0118]).
Regarding claim 21:
The combination of Bilandi and Petrany disclose the limitations of claim 1:
Bilandi further teaches:
wherein the method performed with the controller further includes changing application of the detection zone filter based on changes in direction indicated by additional movement data of the rotational machine. Examiner broadly interprets this limitation to include the meaning that the filter is applied to whatever zone machine is traversing, … (“A method, apparatus and system for generating an indication of an object within an operating ambit of heavy loading equipment is disclosed. The system includes a plurality of sensors disposed about a periphery of the loading equipment, each being operable to generate a proximity signal in response to detecting an object within a coverage region of the sensor, the proximity signal including an indication of at least an approximate distance between the sensor and the object. A processor circuit is operably configured to define an alert region extending outwardly and encompassing swinging movements of outer extents of the loading equipment. The processor circuit is operably configured to receive proximity signals from the plurality of sensors, process the signals to determine a location of the object relative to the loading equipment, and initiate an alert when the location falls within the alert region.”, [Abstract, published 12/27/2012]).
Regarding claim 22:
The combination of Bilandi and Petrany disclose the limitations of claim 1:
Bilandi further teaches:
wherein the method performed with the controller further includes changing application of the detection zone filter based on changes in speed indicated by additional movement data of the rotational machine. Examiner broadly interprets this limitation to include the meaning that the speed of the machine includes its swinging movements, … (“A processor circuit is operably configured to define an alert region extending outwardly and encompassing swinging movements of outer extents of the loading equipment. The processor circuit is operably configured to receive proximity signals from the plurality of sensors, process the signals to determine a location of the object relative to the loading equipment, and initiate an alert when the location falls within the alert region.”, [Abstract]).
Regarding claim 23:
The combination of Bilandi and Petrany disclose the limitations of claim 1:
Bilandi further teaches:
wherein the method performed with the controller further includes changing application of the detection zone filter to include the relevant zones and additionally a previously-excluded zone based on changes in speed indicated by additional movement data of the rotational machine. Examiner broadly interprets this limitation to include the meaning that a previously skipped over zone may be analyzed, … (“ In the embodiment shown, each sensor 120-132 has the same coverage region, however in other embodiments sensors with different coverage regions may be used in different locations.”, [096]).
Regarding claim 24:
The combination of Bilandi and Petrany disclose the limitations of claim 4:
Bilandi further teaches:
wherein the controller is configured to prevent, slow, or stop movement of the rotational machine upon identifying that the location data is within the critical zone. (“In another embodiment image recognition may be performed on the images of the object or other steps such as radio frequency identification may be employed to provide an identification of the object that is detected. The object may be configured with an emergency stop system that receives a wireless command signal from the shovel 100 to cause the object to be halted when a possibility of a collision is detected.”, [0118]).
Regarding claim 25:
The combination of Bilandi and Petrany disclose the limitations of claim 19:
Bilandi further teaches:
wherein upon alerting the operator, the rotational machine prevents, slows, or stops movement of the rotational machine. (“In another embodiment image recognition may be performed on the images of the object or other steps such as radio frequency identification may be employed to provide an identification of the object that is detected. The object may be configured with an emergency stop system that receives a wireless command signal from the shovel 100 to cause the object to be halted when a possibility of a collision is detected.”, [0118]).
Regarding new claim 26:
The combination of Bilandi and Petrany disclose the limitations of claim 11:
Bilandi further teaches: (“wherein the subset of zones is indicative of zones that the machine may enter based on the machine movement data. (“ A method, apparatus and system for generating an indication of an object within an operating ambit of heavy loading equipment is disclosed. The system includes a plurality of sensors disposed about a periphery of the loading equipment, each being operable to generate a proximity signal in response to detecting an object within a coverage region of the sensor, the proximity signal including an indication of at least an approximate distance between the sensor and the object. A processor circuit is operably configured to define an alert region extending outwardly and encompassing swinging movements of outer extents of the loading equipment. The processor circuit is operably configured to receive proximity signals from the plurality of sensors, process the signals to determine a location of the object relative to the loading equipment, and initiate an alert when the location falls within the alert region.”, Bilandi abstract, published 12/27/2012]).
CONCLUSION
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
The following prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Please see attached form 892.
Cook (US20180074178A1) - A system for detecting objects in a zone proximate to a machine includes a detection sensor, an output device, and a controller. The controller is configured to define an obstruction zone proximate to the machine and within the zone, receive detection signals from the detection sensor, determine if the detection signals indicate that an object exists within the obstruction zone, and determine if the object is indicative of a machine component, if the detection signals indicate that the object exists within the obstruction zone, based on a learned obstruction detection process. The learned obstruction detection process is configured to determine if the object is indicative of a machine component by comparing the detection signals with component-associated detection data. The controller is configured to provide an alert signal to the output device if the first object is not indicative a machine component.
Schonert (US10793166B1) – A method of providing object detection warning to an operator of a machine is provided. The machine includes object detection modules, a display unit and a controller communicably coupled to the object detection modules and the display unit. The method detects at least one object being located within a predefined distance range from the machine and determines a distance and position of the detected at least one object relative to the machine. The method further displays a threat warning widget on the display unit. The widget includes a plurality of threat level indicators, each of the threat level indicators being representative of a warning level as a function of distance and position of the object relative to the machine. Furthermore, the method activates at least one threat level indicator based on the determined distance and position of the detected at least one object relative to the machine.
Ushijima (US20220251803A1) – A work machine is improved in manipulability. The work machine includes a manipulation device, an actuator, a surrounding area monitoring device, and a controller. The manipulation device is manipulated to operate the work machine. The actuator drives the work machine in a manner corresponding to a manipulation of the manipulation device. The surrounding area monitoring device serves as a device for detecting whether an object to be recognized is present or not inside a set region that is set in a surrounding area of the work machine. The controller controls the work machine. When a prescribed manipulation device is manipulated in a case where it is detected that the object is present inside the set region, the controller restricts an operation of the actuator corresponding to a manipulation of the manipulation device.
Ide (US20220243427A1) - A set area is appropriately set around a work machine. A hydraulic excavator includes a surroundings monitoring apparatus that detects whether or not an object to be recognized is present within a set area set around the hydraulic excavator, a sensor that detects change in position of a traveling unit with respect to a revolving unit, and a controller that controls the hydraulic excavator. The controller sets the set area in accordance with change in position of the traveling unit with respect to the revolving unit detected by the sensor.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MATTHEW COBB whose telephone number is (571) 272-3850. The examiner can normally be reached 9 - 5, M - F.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to call examiner Cobb as above, or to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Peter Nolan, can be reached at (571) 270-7016. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is (571) 273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at (866) 217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call (800) 786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or (571) 272-1000.
/MATTHEW COBB/Examiner, Art Unit 3661
/PETER D NOLAN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3661
Prosecution Insights